Arguing against Fatalism:
If you are reading this you are human with the ability to internalize the external world (that which is outside your body/brain/heart group) and remember it, building a model of a consistent reality. Your being, determined by the past happenings of the universe, knows what is currently happening in and around your being( by mechanisms both long known and studied by other humans and included in your model of the world, and by mechanisms currently being discovered and studied by neuroscientists). You are a physical, material being, that knows of other patterns existing in reality by virtue of the analog representations that exist in very real patterns imprinted in the structure and connections, chemicals and impulses in your body/brain/heart group. And as the world around you changes and moves, or you move through it and materially change it, the model of it, that you possess, that you are aware of, changes accordingly.
Thusly, as a human, you are both determined by reality, and a determiner of it, at your current time and place, at the location of your body/brain/heart group that is sensing reality, now.
And in your model of the world exists memories of others like you, that can also do this sensing of the world thing. And you know them to have shaped the future with their wills, building things, shaping reality into the patterns they had in their heads, determining the outcome.
What part of this is untrue in a fatalists estimation? Where is free will not evidenced in this known scenario? Where is determining its own future not an obvious role and responsibility and valuable capability of a sentient being?
Regards, TAR
Fatalism sells consciousness and reality short.
Moderator: Moderators
Fatalism sells consciousness and reality short.
Post #1Not a one of knows as much as all of us put together.
Post #2
It seems we both have rather different perspectives; you're much more optimistic.
To a fatalist, I don't think anything of what you've said is untrue, but it has a definite spin on it. Also, free will as I usually define it would be the ability to do something which would not have been done by the laws of the universe alone(Bordering on impossible by definition), so I don't believe that we have it.
As to whether they are our choices or not, I don't think we can truly call them so.
Given the nature of the universe, we are determined(Well, as good as) by the input into us. If you know a line of dominoes, it would be strange indeed to say that each one chose to knock down the next, and in the same manner, I don't think we can say that a person 'chose' anything.
Of course, I still take responsibility for my actions etc. I'm not that bad of a person.
To a fatalist, I don't think anything of what you've said is untrue, but it has a definite spin on it. Also, free will as I usually define it would be the ability to do something which would not have been done by the laws of the universe alone(Bordering on impossible by definition), so I don't believe that we have it.
As to whether they are our choices or not, I don't think we can truly call them so.
Given the nature of the universe, we are determined(Well, as good as) by the input into us. If you know a line of dominoes, it would be strange indeed to say that each one chose to knock down the next, and in the same manner, I don't think we can say that a person 'chose' anything.
Of course, I still take responsibility for my actions etc. I'm not that bad of a person.
Post #3
Aki,
Well I guess its all in the spin you put on things.
I was thinking today about this argument with you, and questioning my own motivations to be in the argument in the first place. Was it to show you a "spin", a perspective where you could accept all the true things you know and see them in a way that would be good, be positive, be pleasant, be rewarding. Or was I in the debate to verify my own spin, being "right", at the expense of you being "wrong".
I determined that if we couldn't arrive at a position that would allow all the true things that you know, and all the true things that I know, to be explained, and understood for what they really were, if I had to prove you wrong, for me to be right, then I was probably fooling myself in thinking I was after the truth. And I was probably after feeling "right" for my own benefit, with no actual concern, for what would make you feel "right", with no actual progress made toward the "truth".
But then I got confused. I have a worldview that needs the things I believe to be true, to be true. And you have a worldview that needs the things you believe to be true to be true. Should I stick to my guns, and continue to parse the world in my terms, with my spin, or should I attempt to grasp the "truth" in what I consider "wrongheaded", even if it shakes my worldview and challenges the underpinning assumptions.
The whole internal conversation I was having reminded me of an old insight I had about rationalization. When I do something wrong, or make a mistake (by my own standards), I usually find a rationalization by which I can feel "less" wrong, or even "right" about the situation. (Example: I was reconfiguring a work bench with my dad, and started a circular saw cut in the wrong place, leaving a small cut that would be forever visible, "whoops, well now you will have something to remember this project by, and you will think of your son every time you see it.")
Point being, concerning fatalism, if one can look at the huge universe, and feel tiny and insignificant, AND look an electron and feel great and powerful, and both views are true, what is wrong with focusing on the view that is more satisfying, and let the other view wane in significance?
As for the dominoes. I have legs, I can step out of the way when I see the domino next to me is falling, or I can lean toward it with all my strength, and maybe stop its fall, or I can just let it hit me, and fall into the next domino, knocking it over. I have a choice.
Regards, TAR
Well I guess its all in the spin you put on things.
I was thinking today about this argument with you, and questioning my own motivations to be in the argument in the first place. Was it to show you a "spin", a perspective where you could accept all the true things you know and see them in a way that would be good, be positive, be pleasant, be rewarding. Or was I in the debate to verify my own spin, being "right", at the expense of you being "wrong".
I determined that if we couldn't arrive at a position that would allow all the true things that you know, and all the true things that I know, to be explained, and understood for what they really were, if I had to prove you wrong, for me to be right, then I was probably fooling myself in thinking I was after the truth. And I was probably after feeling "right" for my own benefit, with no actual concern, for what would make you feel "right", with no actual progress made toward the "truth".
But then I got confused. I have a worldview that needs the things I believe to be true, to be true. And you have a worldview that needs the things you believe to be true to be true. Should I stick to my guns, and continue to parse the world in my terms, with my spin, or should I attempt to grasp the "truth" in what I consider "wrongheaded", even if it shakes my worldview and challenges the underpinning assumptions.
The whole internal conversation I was having reminded me of an old insight I had about rationalization. When I do something wrong, or make a mistake (by my own standards), I usually find a rationalization by which I can feel "less" wrong, or even "right" about the situation. (Example: I was reconfiguring a work bench with my dad, and started a circular saw cut in the wrong place, leaving a small cut that would be forever visible, "whoops, well now you will have something to remember this project by, and you will think of your son every time you see it.")
Point being, concerning fatalism, if one can look at the huge universe, and feel tiny and insignificant, AND look an electron and feel great and powerful, and both views are true, what is wrong with focusing on the view that is more satisfying, and let the other view wane in significance?
As for the dominoes. I have legs, I can step out of the way when I see the domino next to me is falling, or I can lean toward it with all my strength, and maybe stop its fall, or I can just let it hit me, and fall into the next domino, knocking it over. I have a choice.
Regards, TAR
Not a one of knows as much as all of us put together.
Post #4
One's perception of the truth is neither right nor wrong.[color=orange]tar2[/color] wrote:I was thinking today about this argument with you, and questioning my own motivations to be in the argument in the first place. Was it to show you a "spin", a perspective where you could accept all the true things you know and see them in a way that would be good, be positive, be pleasant, be rewarding. Or was I in the debate to verify my own spin, being "right", at the expense of you being "wrong".
I determined that if we couldn't arrive at a position that would allow all the true things that you know, and all the true things that I know, to be explained, and understood for what they really were, if I had to prove you wrong, for me to be right, then I was probably fooling myself in thinking I was after the truth. And I was probably after feeling "right" for my own benefit, with no actual concern, for what would make you feel "right", with no actual progress made toward the "truth".
Well, everybody needs a few basic assumptions to get started.[color=green]tar2[/color] wrote:But then I got confused. I have a worldview that needs the things I believe to be true, to be true. And you have a worldview that needs the things you believe to be true to be true.
Mine are:
The universe exists.
The scientific method is capable of determining facts about the universe.
The underpinning assumptions of one's philosophy should be as solid as possible; if you can truly doubt yours, I'd recommend reviewing them.[color=violet]tar2[/color] wrote:Should I stick to my guns, and continue to parse the world in my terms, with my spin, or should I attempt to grasp the "truth" in what I consider "wrongheaded", even if it shakes my worldview and challenges the underpinning assumptions.
I used to assume causality.
Taking the satisfying view leads to unwarranted self-importance.[color=cyan]tar2[/color] wrote:Point being, concerning fatalism, if one can look at the huge universe, and feel tiny and insignificant, AND look an electron and feel great and powerful, and both views are true, what is wrong with focusing on the view that is more satisfying, and let the other view wane in significance?
Ideally, one shouldn't necessitate a subjective view of a reality to reassure one's self.
Only insofar as you are more complex that a domino.[color=red]tar2[/color] wrote:As for the dominoes. I have legs, I can step out of the way when I see the domino next to me is falling, or I can lean toward it with all my strength, and maybe stop its fall, or I can just let it hit me, and fall into the next domino, knocking it over. I have a choice.
If we were to compare every neuron in your brain to a domino, and if it is neurons that effect your choices, one could see that the choices are pre-ordained.
Post #5
Aki,
Fair response, but a few points.
Reality does exist.
Scientific method is an excellent way to determine facts about reality.
But I add two assumptions.
I exist.
My body/brain/heart group is an excellent mechanism that determines facts about reality.
So my dilemma is not that I think my assumptions may be unrealistic. I think they are solid.
My dilemma is when my conclusions and someone elses conclusions differ.
When that happens, I look for what lack of facts is evident, or what facts are being ignored, or what facts are being forgotten, or what facts are being defended at the expense of other facts. And in most all cases, I can find a place where someone has carried an analogy too far, or not far enough. Sometimes that someone is me, and sometimes that someone is you, sometimes that someone is a scientist, and sometimes that someone is a Christian Theist. But never is that someone reality. Reality fits together flawlessly and forgets nothing, and is not finished being.
If a scientist believes there is a truth which explains all, that we do not yet know all the facts about, and a Christian Theist believes there is a truth which explains all, that we do not yet know all the facts about, I would submit that the reality of the situation is that whatever the spin, we exist, and reality exists, and one cannot be true without the other being true.
Which brings me to the difference between dream and reality.
When I dream, I can take the elements of reality and put them together in any number of ways, that don't nescessarily have to be ways that they can actually be in reality. I can relax the rules, or make up some of my own, or fail to take some actual element of reality into account. But as soon as I wake up, the elements of my dream that match with reality, and those that don't, become apparent. Perhaps if I dreamt there was an elephant in my back yard, I might have to go look at the back yard, to make sure it wasn't true, because although it wouldn't make a lot of sense for it to be true, it COULD be true, and still fit the model of reality I hold in my head. If on the other hand I dreamt that there was a unicorn in my backyard, I don't think I would have to check on the reality of the situation and could carry on my business, knowing there was not a unicorn in my backyard.
So, next, consider ideas. They put together the elements of reality in any number of different ways, that attempt to match as closely as possible with the rules and actualities of reality. Some turn out to be bad ideas, that don't fit, that don't work, and you were wrong, it was a bad idea. Some turn out to be good ideas that do fit, that do work, you were right, it was a good idea. Sometimes the determination can be made using the facts you already have. "Oh, that doesn't work." or "Hey, that works!". Sometimes you have to run it past someone else. "Do you think this is a good idea?" Sometimes you have to put it to the test of reality and try it out, before a determination can be made.
The world I know, consists of an intricate mix of reality and elements of reality rearranged in human imaginations and tested against reality.
That I am of it and in it is true. That it has determined me and that I determine it is true on several different levels.
What my relationship to it is, is both a matter of actuality and a matter of future actuality. And the future has not yet been determined. All dreams have not yet been tested.
Regards, TAR
Fair response, but a few points.
Reality does exist.
Scientific method is an excellent way to determine facts about reality.
But I add two assumptions.
I exist.
My body/brain/heart group is an excellent mechanism that determines facts about reality.
So my dilemma is not that I think my assumptions may be unrealistic. I think they are solid.
My dilemma is when my conclusions and someone elses conclusions differ.
When that happens, I look for what lack of facts is evident, or what facts are being ignored, or what facts are being forgotten, or what facts are being defended at the expense of other facts. And in most all cases, I can find a place where someone has carried an analogy too far, or not far enough. Sometimes that someone is me, and sometimes that someone is you, sometimes that someone is a scientist, and sometimes that someone is a Christian Theist. But never is that someone reality. Reality fits together flawlessly and forgets nothing, and is not finished being.
If a scientist believes there is a truth which explains all, that we do not yet know all the facts about, and a Christian Theist believes there is a truth which explains all, that we do not yet know all the facts about, I would submit that the reality of the situation is that whatever the spin, we exist, and reality exists, and one cannot be true without the other being true.
Which brings me to the difference between dream and reality.
When I dream, I can take the elements of reality and put them together in any number of ways, that don't nescessarily have to be ways that they can actually be in reality. I can relax the rules, or make up some of my own, or fail to take some actual element of reality into account. But as soon as I wake up, the elements of my dream that match with reality, and those that don't, become apparent. Perhaps if I dreamt there was an elephant in my back yard, I might have to go look at the back yard, to make sure it wasn't true, because although it wouldn't make a lot of sense for it to be true, it COULD be true, and still fit the model of reality I hold in my head. If on the other hand I dreamt that there was a unicorn in my backyard, I don't think I would have to check on the reality of the situation and could carry on my business, knowing there was not a unicorn in my backyard.
So, next, consider ideas. They put together the elements of reality in any number of different ways, that attempt to match as closely as possible with the rules and actualities of reality. Some turn out to be bad ideas, that don't fit, that don't work, and you were wrong, it was a bad idea. Some turn out to be good ideas that do fit, that do work, you were right, it was a good idea. Sometimes the determination can be made using the facts you already have. "Oh, that doesn't work." or "Hey, that works!". Sometimes you have to run it past someone else. "Do you think this is a good idea?" Sometimes you have to put it to the test of reality and try it out, before a determination can be made.
The world I know, consists of an intricate mix of reality and elements of reality rearranged in human imaginations and tested against reality.
That I am of it and in it is true. That it has determined me and that I determine it is true on several different levels.
What my relationship to it is, is both a matter of actuality and a matter of future actuality. And the future has not yet been determined. All dreams have not yet been tested.
Regards, TAR
Not a one of knows as much as all of us put together.
Post #6
This is because of your assumption:[color=orange]tar2[/color] wrote:My dilemma is when my conclusions and someone elses conclusions differ.
"My body/brain/heart group is an excellent mechanism that determines facts about reality."
It is not necessarily true.
Your brain only allows you to use a mechanism that determines facts about reality; the brain can only take you so far on its own.
Only through the scientific method and experimentation can the brain determine those facts that would otherwise be unknowable.
Post #7
Aki,
I understand that. That is why I rely on other people to help me determine what is true and what is not.
But this leaves us with the fact that two people still have two different models of the world.
If somebody determines facts about the world, using rigorous experimentation and peer review to determine the fact, and it fits with my model of the world, then it can be added to my knowledge, added to my model instantly.
If however, it does not jive with all I know, if it conflicts, I need to find the source of the conflict in order to fit it into my model of the world. I do this with the assumption that the world does not lie, it only does true things where everything fits, everything has a mechanism, every entity has an actual history, present configuration, and possible future states.
Since the world can not tell an untruth, then either I have something to learn, or the other person does or we both do. Generally speaking, one can resolve the conflict and adjust ones model appropriately, once the required knowledge is identified. Funny thing is, I don't have to actually witness the mechanism, or see the entity, to include it in my model of the world. Often, if it fits, if it make sense, I just take it on faith.
However, there are claims made, that go against what I know to be true.
I reject these, until I learn something that would allow it to fit with everything else I know.
As an example, your claim that you have nothing to do with the final outcome.
Everything I know, points to the fact that although there are outcomes, there is no such thing as a final outcome. A particular story can have an ending, but that particular story leaves the world in a particular state, from which other stories can and do begin. You cannot claim you have no effect on something you made up, and expect the claim to be true to me.
And your claim that everything is pre-ordained. Pre-ordained? What does that mean? Who does the ordaining? And how does he/she/it do it, before the fact?
Regards, TAR
I understand that. That is why I rely on other people to help me determine what is true and what is not.
But this leaves us with the fact that two people still have two different models of the world.
If somebody determines facts about the world, using rigorous experimentation and peer review to determine the fact, and it fits with my model of the world, then it can be added to my knowledge, added to my model instantly.
If however, it does not jive with all I know, if it conflicts, I need to find the source of the conflict in order to fit it into my model of the world. I do this with the assumption that the world does not lie, it only does true things where everything fits, everything has a mechanism, every entity has an actual history, present configuration, and possible future states.
Since the world can not tell an untruth, then either I have something to learn, or the other person does or we both do. Generally speaking, one can resolve the conflict and adjust ones model appropriately, once the required knowledge is identified. Funny thing is, I don't have to actually witness the mechanism, or see the entity, to include it in my model of the world. Often, if it fits, if it make sense, I just take it on faith.
However, there are claims made, that go against what I know to be true.
I reject these, until I learn something that would allow it to fit with everything else I know.
As an example, your claim that you have nothing to do with the final outcome.
Everything I know, points to the fact that although there are outcomes, there is no such thing as a final outcome. A particular story can have an ending, but that particular story leaves the world in a particular state, from which other stories can and do begin. You cannot claim you have no effect on something you made up, and expect the claim to be true to me.
And your claim that everything is pre-ordained. Pre-ordained? What does that mean? Who does the ordaining? And how does he/she/it do it, before the fact?
Regards, TAR
Last edited by tar2 on Thu Aug 26, 2010 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Not a one of knows as much as all of us put together.
-
realthinker
- Sage
- Posts: 842
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:57 am
- Location: Tampa, FL
Post #8
Perhaps the matter of free will is a matter of personal perspective and understanding.AkiThePirate wrote:It seems we both have rather different perspectives; you're much more optimistic.
To a fatalist, I don't think anything of what you've said is untrue, but it has a definite spin on it. Also, free will as I usually define it would be the ability to do something which would not have been done by the laws of the universe alone(Bordering on impossible by definition), so I don't believe that we have it.
As to whether they are our choices or not, I don't think we can truly call them so.
Given the nature of the universe, we are determined(Well, as good as) by the input into us. If you know a line of dominoes, it would be strange indeed to say that each one chose to knock down the next, and in the same manner, I don't think we can say that a person 'chose' anything.
Of course, I still take responsibility for my actions etc. I'm not that bad of a person.
Whether we acknowledge free will or not is not based on the degree of our ability to change the parameter of what is about to happen next but our recognition of what all the parameters are and the laws that function on those parameters.
If we could know every variable of the world around us and every consequence of the current values of those variables there would be no limit to the degree to which we could predict our future. There would be no choice. All is predictable. The laws govern our future absolutely.
But since we don't know those laws and conditions we can imagine that our behavior influences them, rather than recognizing that those laws are in complete control. The degree to which we recognize the laws, or perhaps imagine the laws, is the degree to which we can appreciate or dismiss the idea of free will.
If all the ignorance in the world passed a second ago, what would you say? Who would you obey?
Post #9
RealThinker,
I am watching episode three of Charlie Rose's series on the brain.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/collection/10702
with Daniel Wolpert, Robert Brown, John Krakauer , Eric Kandel and Thomas Jessell
in Science & Health part of Charlie Rose: The Brain Series
on Tuesday, December 22, 2009 * * * * *
Why I bring it here is something that one of the participants was talking about, I believe it was Daniel Wolpert, who, and I am paraphrasing, talked about a predictive motor simulator that has been identified in our brains. We, since there is about a quarter second delay in getting a signal down to a muscle, run a predictive simulation of what would happen if certain signals were sent. And we send the appropriate signals at the appropriate times to result in the action we wish to take. They proved this simulator exists, by placing a book on the hand of one, and as the other removed the book, the one's hand followed the book up.
When the one removed the book from his own hand with his other, he could hold the first hand stationary. The simulator can predict our own actions, but cannot predict the actions of others. This simulator also explains why we cannot tickle ourselves. There is no surprise involved.
My take, in reference to our discussion here, is that you may be using your predictive motor simulator, for more than it can actually do, when you suppose that if you had enough information, you could predict the future. You are taking the tickle out of it.
Regards, TAR
I am watching episode three of Charlie Rose's series on the brain.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/collection/10702
with Daniel Wolpert, Robert Brown, John Krakauer , Eric Kandel and Thomas Jessell
in Science & Health part of Charlie Rose: The Brain Series
on Tuesday, December 22, 2009 * * * * *
Why I bring it here is something that one of the participants was talking about, I believe it was Daniel Wolpert, who, and I am paraphrasing, talked about a predictive motor simulator that has been identified in our brains. We, since there is about a quarter second delay in getting a signal down to a muscle, run a predictive simulation of what would happen if certain signals were sent. And we send the appropriate signals at the appropriate times to result in the action we wish to take. They proved this simulator exists, by placing a book on the hand of one, and as the other removed the book, the one's hand followed the book up.
When the one removed the book from his own hand with his other, he could hold the first hand stationary. The simulator can predict our own actions, but cannot predict the actions of others. This simulator also explains why we cannot tickle ourselves. There is no surprise involved.
My take, in reference to our discussion here, is that you may be using your predictive motor simulator, for more than it can actually do, when you suppose that if you had enough information, you could predict the future. You are taking the tickle out of it.
Regards, TAR
Not a one of knows as much as all of us put together.
Post #10
Realthinker,
And the predictive motor simulator uses what it has learned from experience, and obtained from practice to run the simulation.
I reject the information in, information out, Turing machine approach to the universe. The approach assumes the universe is a machine with a program that can therefore only add up to a predetermined value, given a certain input.
Well this approach does not work for me. For it to work you need a machine, a program and an input. What is the machine? What is the program? What is the input? All unknowns, when considering "all of reality". How can you claim the output is determined?
No, I think I will stick to my guns. I have free will because I can determine my own actions ahead of time. And since I am 100% reality material, I will reject any claim that the laws of the universe disallow my existence, or as you put it, that I am just imagining it.
Regards, TAR
And the predictive motor simulator uses what it has learned from experience, and obtained from practice to run the simulation.
I reject the information in, information out, Turing machine approach to the universe. The approach assumes the universe is a machine with a program that can therefore only add up to a predetermined value, given a certain input.
Well this approach does not work for me. For it to work you need a machine, a program and an input. What is the machine? What is the program? What is the input? All unknowns, when considering "all of reality". How can you claim the output is determined?
No, I think I will stick to my guns. I have free will because I can determine my own actions ahead of time. And since I am 100% reality material, I will reject any claim that the laws of the universe disallow my existence, or as you put it, that I am just imagining it.
Regards, TAR
